Should the CF retain MBTs?

[Zipper]

Hear Hear Majoor!

Although I wonder where this is coming from? I thought this debate was dead? Or do you know something about the MGS and other platforms that we do not? Being in London and all? 

 

[air533]

.

 

[LordOsborne]

3. Tanks can carry Infantry. Traditional "tank riders" on the back, or modern machines with space in the back which can be adapted to carry infantry would be able to bring along close protection right into contact, or out again in an emergency. Merkava tanks and a version of the Centurio tank destroyer can carry 4-8 infantry wedged in the back.

(just adding on here)I know the CV 90-120 isn't an MBT, but it can also carry 4 soldiers inside, because it retains the rear doors of the CV 90 carrier.

 

[gifrank]

Being a Strat and a soldier of the Canada s first MGS Squadron there is a few problems that have us soldiers fuming.
1. The mgs is changing all doctrine as we see it. We are going to have 2 Tow and 2 ADATS in each troop. So that brings a troop to 8 call signs. By the way the tow Coy is arriving 15 April from the PPCLI.  The next is the system has so many bugs in it that we should have trailed it before any commitments is done. IE if you have a misfire there is no way of removing the round. Also the round ejection system will hit any infanter behind it.  Also it will not fit in a Herc.  There are many other problems such as crew commanding it is a night mare due to the lack of muzzle break the commander will burn his head on the back blast. :tank:

 

[George Wallace]

We have several tangents branching off here on topics that are already developed threads.  Try a search on such items as "MGS", " CV 90", and "Stryker" and check what we have been saying there.  That way we are not rehashing the same things in different threads.

 

[foronecharles]

Yes, we should keep MBT's, as opposed to the Stryker debacle being tested as a replacement.  Most fighting in the future will be in an urban setting, and a heavily armoured cannon with coax properly protected by Infantry is a hard thing to deal with.  Possibly upgrading the Leo with more armour on the top and sides couldn't hurt for such a role either, but the days of engaging wave after wave of Soviet or Chinese tank divisions is over.

 

[abadasstanker69]

I dont know about that charles. If we where to fight Korea or even worse china we could be malling through alot og people. We where just talking about this the other day in the motor pool. I mean theoraticall if we ever got tanks there they could clog the road wheels (like komakazzies) with sheer bodies I mean it's not very nice but that is how wars are foght now. Inhumane if you ask me but its reality.As for open battle field armor fights I dont see those glorious tanker days in our future at all.

 

[Zipper]

Which is why I think this thread should be closed now. Yes we "should" have MBT's. NO, we are not going to be getting them (back). So we need to move on to solving all the other problems that entails.

Topic dead.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

...and locked, if someone comes up with something new and relevant, just ask and, we'll see.
Bruce